Under the principle of material cooperation, Catholic institutions and individuals violate their consciences if they pay the insurance premiums that provide contraceptives and abortifacients.

In response to the HHS basic benefits package, the USCCB staff helped draft the Blunt Amendment. Interesting, the Blunt Amendment gives bosses (for-profit and non-profit) the right not to include contraceptives but gives no relief to employees. Did the Catholic sell out the consciences of tens of millions of lay Catholics, only to consider the bosses?

But on the core issue, there is no premium charge for contraception coverage under the HHS accomodation. Is it remote material cooperation to buy insurance from a company tha tprovides contraception to other customers at the same cost as that billed to the objecting party?

This is also the problem with the Administration’s so-called accomodation: the HHS says that the insurance companies have to provide these “services” for free; but, common sense tells us the premiums will be raised or costs shifted another way so that the Catholic insitution/individual is still footing the bill

The insurance companies say contraceptive coverage actually reduces their costs. Respect for the free market might give deference to these compan’s knowing their business best. One diocese is charged $10 MORE per enrollee by excluding contraception.

Additionally, some dioceses and other Catholic institutions self-insure, so there is no insurance company in those situations.

That is a fair point. I would note that when Wisconsin passed a similar insurance mandate (with self-insurance plans exempted as states do not have authority to regulate self-insured plans), Madison Bishop Morlino ran the numbers and decided that it was okay to offer contraception because it was a little cheaper to him than self-insurance.

Ezra Brooks,

There is good evidence that adding contraceptive coverage to existing plans will not increase the cost. There is also good evidence that it might. Basically, it is impossible to predict.

However, whether or not material cooperation is acceptable depends on a great many factors, and it seems to me the “material cooperation” argument is a very weak one. I don’t have time to go through every point I would normally make, but please remember the employer takes no action other than what he or she normally would, the employer very well might not be paying extra, the employees might not take advantage of the coverage, and finally, for, let’s say, oral contraceptives, it is not swallowing them that is morally objectionable (since they have licit uses other than for contraception). It is actually the sex act between the man and the women that the Church considers immoral. It seems to me the employer is far, far removed from acts of sexual intercourse performed by his or her employees.

The argument that contraceptives are readily available already is even more detrimental to the case for material cooperation with evil. Remember, it is the sexual intercourse that is wrong, not the contraceptives themselves. If you are in some way responsible for giving someone something they couldn’t get otherwise, and they use it in an improper way, you bear a certain responsibility, I suppose. But if you are responsible in a minor way for supplying something that a person could easily obtain on his or her own, exactly how significant is your “cooperation”?

Under the principle of material cooperation, Catholic institutions and individuals violate their consciences if they pay the insurance premiums that provide contraceptives and abortifacients.

This is also the problem with the Administration’s so-called accomodation: the HHS says that the insurance companies have to provide these “services” for free; but, common sense tells us the premiums will be raised or costs shifted another way so that the Catholic insitution/individual is still footing the bill for “services” that violate a Catholic conscience.

Additionally, some dioceses and other Catholic institutions self-insure, so there is no insurance company in those situations.

This won’t settle the debate, but “no uncertain terms” seems a bit much.

An employer and the workers (either individually or by collective bargaining) negotiate in exchange for labor the payment of a wage and certain benefits including health insurance purchased from an outside vendor. That vendor then offers contraceptives directly for those workers who want it, outside of the insurance policy as contraceptives are not included in the written contract with the vendor.

I think it would be only the insurance company that is being asked to violate its principles “in no uncertain terms.”

Adam Baum,

So you’re saying that anesthesia isn’t a medical expense and shouldn’t be paid for by insurance?

That a majority of people are unable to distinguish between chemical or physical agents that restore or even enhance normal function and agents that suppress or abate normal function is not a measure of an objective and unassailable reality, its a sad comment on persistency of popular delusions. Other popular delusions: some people are inferior, alchemy, geocentrism….

I appreciate your thoughtfulness, but I disagree with your premises and conclusions.

Public policy or law should not require a person or institution to violate its conscience. This is what the HHS Mandate does in no uncertain terms. At the end of the day, that is why the HHS Mandate is unjust and violates the RFRA. Further, I think your assessment of the Administration’s intent is too benevolent: Secretary Sebellius has spoken of a war against pro-lifers in a speech to NARAL.

What I also find interesting in this saga is that two Catholics in the administration, Vice President Biden and Secretary of Defense Panetta, originally voiced concerns about the HHS Mandate, and then went suddenly quiet.

Regardless of intent, the HHS Mandate will cause Catholics and others to violate their consciences. No law or public policy should have this effect or end. Whether this was intentional or unintended may be up for debate; what is not up for debate is that the Mandate will force Catholics to violate their consciences. Other religious groups see the writing on the wall.

My final prediction: Catholic and Jewish members of the Supreme Court will vote together to strike down the mandate as unconstitutional and as a violation of the RFRA. Their holding will not be based on their respective faiths, but will be based on the law as properly understood.

Ezra Brooks,

It is not my view that the Church is declining. It is a fact. And not just Catholicism, but Protestantism as well.

The number of Mormons in the United States increased by nearly 50% between 2000 and 2010, while the number of “active members” of the Catholic Church declined by 5%, according to the latest decennial religious census published by the Association of Religion Data Archives.

For the first time since researchers began tracking the religious identity of Americans, fewer than half said they were Protestants, a steep decline from 40 years ago when Protestant churches claimed the loyalty of more than two-thirds of the population.

The number of Catholics in the United States is only slightly than the number of “nones.”

Ezra Brooks,

I never prove other people’s points! :P

The Administration is essentially saying to Catholics “we don’t care what your beliefs are; you are going to do things our way, or you won’t be doing them at all.”

As I said before, I presume from the administration’s point of view, the contraceptive mandate is not about Catholicism. It’s about women’s health. If it can somehow be shown that the intention behind the mandate was to put a burden on Catholics, then it would be a case of religious discrimination. I haven’t heard any legal claims along those lines, although there are people who claim the intent of the contraceptive mandate is to hurt the Church, which is foolish. Now, did the administration know that there would almost certainly be objections from Catholics? I can only assume so. But did they require the mandate in order to get complaints from Catholics, or in order to “marginalize” the Catholic Church? Of course not.

From the government’s point of view, the question is whether the mandate is important enough to impose as a general law, even knowing that some will object. The conclusion of the administration is, obviously, yes. It’s important. Religious liberty is not absolute, and nobody ever would claim it is. The government is not required, when it makes a law or promulgates a regulation, to make sure no one will have religious objections. What it is obliged to do is to keep the law or regulation within the boundaries of what is acceptable according to the Constitution and existing law. Has the government done that in the case of the contraceptive mandate? Maybe, and maybe not. We can all have opinions, but ultimately it is going to be decided by the courts. You believe the courts will strike down the mandate. I believe the odds are perhaps 50-50, or maybe 60-40 on the administration’s side. I trust in the courts to make the right decision, whereas I am guessing many Catholics and others will simply insist the courts are wrong if they uphold the mandate.

It does not indicate contempt or even disrespect for the government to make a law that some people have religious objection to (unless, of course, the law is actually targeted at the religious group). For example, the Amish have objections to insurance coverage, and they are permitted to opt out of paying into Social Security, from which they also will not collect. That the government allows this is respect for their religious freedom. However, Amish employers are required to pay into Social Security for those they employ who choose not to opt out of Social Security. So while the Amish are permitted not to cooperate with the Social Security system in one way (not paying into it for themselves and not collecting benefits), they are not allowed to opt out in another way (by declining to pay into Social Security for their employees). The government has to strike a balance between the religious liberty of the Amish and the necessities of the Social Security system. There are some things the Amish can be exempted from, but there are others where they are forced to cooperate even though they raised religious objections via lawsuits (which they lost).

If one person’s conscience is violated, that’s one too many.

Of course, no government could ever operate by this principle.

The Federal Government would do much better to help and serve the American people by working with the Church, not against her.

As we have already seen, but majority of the funding for Catholic Charities comes from the federal government. A great deal more comes from local governments. The federal and local governments work with the Catholic Church in many ways. Catholic hospitals could not survive without Medicare and Medicaid funds, for example.

It’s a question of balance—women’s health versus claims of religious liberties. Many Catholics may scoff at the idea of contraception being important for women’s health, but a majority of Americans (including a majority of Catholics) support the contraceptive mandate. If the mandate is upheld and Catholic organizations are required to provide health insurance covering contraception (or not provide insurance at all), it will not be the first time a religious group has made a claim to religious liberty that is rejected by the courts. It happens all the time.

Jack Perry,

The difference between grants and contracts is objective and factual, not a matter of a difference of opinion between you and me. A government contract is an agreement between the government and (generally) a private company that the company (the government contractor) will provide the goods and/or services the government wants as specified in the contract. The government is saying, in effect, “We want to buy something specific from you. We’ll pay for it. You will deliver it. And if you don’t deliver it, you will have failed to live up to the terms of the contract.”

When the government gives a grant, it is not buying something for itself. It is funding something it thinks will be worthwhile. For example:

The NEA Literature Fellowships program offers $25,000 grants in prose (fiction and creative nonfiction) and poetry to published creative writers that enable the recipients to set aside time for writing, research, travel, and general career advancement. Applications are reviewed through an anonymous process in which the only criteria for review are artistic excellence and artistic merit. To review the applications, the NEA assembles a different advisory panel every year, each diverse with regard to geography, race and ethnicity, and artistic points of view.

If a military contractor gets a contract to build a new aircraft for the Air Force, the government is buying the services of the contractor to design, build, test, and deliver the new aircraft to the government (and nobody else). If a writer gets a grant to work on a novel or a book of poetry, the government is not buying the novel or the poems. And if for some (good) reason the writer is unable to complete the novel or the poems, the government doesn’t demand its money back. Whereas if the contractor doesn’t ultimately produce the aircraft, they will be in breach of contract.

Generally, the government isn’t giving Catholic Charities grants (althought they may). The government isn’t saying to Catholic Charities (or Planned Parenthood—it’s the same type of deal), “We think you’re doing good work, and we’d like to help you out.” They are saying, “There is specific work do be done, and you can apply for a contract to do it. If your bid is low and we consider you competent to do the job, then we will contract with you to do the work we want done, and we’ll pay you to do it.”

The government doesn’t “donate” to Catholic Charities so it can keep on doing what it is already doing. The government contracts for services with Catholic Charities. Catholic Charities is, in many cases, just another government contractor bidding for contracts from the government and doing the work the government pays it to do.

This is not to knock Catholic Charities, or to say they don’t do an excellent job, or to say they work only on government contracts. But in a very real sense, when you are a government contractor, you work for the government.